
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us Fan Mail
In this episode we discuss the case of Hemphill v. New York, where the Supreme Court held that an accused did not waive his right to confront an absent witness when he offered evidence that implied the absent witness was the true perpetrator of the offense.
We then discuss how to respond when your witness refuses to remember a fact of consequence despite having their memory refreshed.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us Fan Mail
In this episode we discuss the case of Hemphill v. New York, where the Supreme Court held that an accused did not waive his right to confront an absent witness when he offered evidence that implied the absent witness was the true perpetrator of the offense.
We then discuss how to respond when your witness refuses to remember a fact of consequence despite having their memory refreshed.

113,121 Listeners

56,944 Listeners

14,337 Listeners

15,506 Listeners

29,272 Listeners

16,525 Listeners